• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.99-143
• /
• 2016

General aviation and air transport are two wings of the civil aviation industry. Chinese air transport is developing rapidly, and has become the world second air transport system only second to US since 2005. However, Chinese civil aviation is far behind the world average level, and cannot meet requirements of economic construction and social development. The transition and structural adjustment of Chinese economy provide the general aviation with a unprecedented broad market. The prospect of general aviation is promising and anticipated. The development of general aviation industry needs the legislative supports, and the current legislative conditions of Chinese general aviation are undoubtedly far behind the realistic requirements. Accelerating the legislation in Chinese general aviation industry requires scientific legislation concept. First, Legislation must promote development of general aviation industry. The general aviation will serves as a Chinese emerging industry that boosts domestic demand, promotes employment and expedite domestic economic development. We should, based on both the concept of promoting the industrial development of general aviation and national industrial planning, enact and rectify relative laws and regulations. And we should also straighten out the relationship between aviation security and industrial development and promote the revolution of low-altitude airspace management in an all-round way, in order to improve the utilization rate of airspace resources, classify and establish airspace, simplify examination and approval procedure and intensify operation management. In addition, what we should do is to expedite the infrastructure layout construction, guide the differentiated but coordinated development of general aviation industries in various areas, establish a united supervision mechanism of general aviation, redistrict the responsibilities of Chinese Air Control Agency and set up legislation, law enforcement and judicial systems with clarified institutions, clear positioning and classified responsibilities, so as to usher in a new era of the legislative management of Chinese general aviation industry. Second, shift the focus from regulations to both regulations and services. Considering the particularity of the general aviation, we should use American practices for reference and take into account both regulation and service functions when enacting general aviation laws. For example, we should reduce administrative licensing and market supervision, and adopt "criteria" and "approval" management systems for non-commercial and commercial aviation. Furthermore, pay attention to social benefits. Complete social rescuing mechanism through legislation. It should be clarified in legislation that general aviation operators should take the responsibilities of, and ensure to realize social benefits of environmental protection and ecological balance .Finally, rise in line with international standards. Modify Chinese regulations which is inconsistent with international ones to remove barriers to international cooperation. Specify basic legislative principles. One is the principle of coordination. Realize coordination between the civil aviation and general aviation, between military aviation and civil aviation, and among departments. Two is the principle of pertinence. The general aviation has its own rules and specialties, needing to be standardized using specialized laws and regulations. Three is the principle of efficiency. To realize time and space values of general aviation, we should complete rules in aerospace openness, general aviation airport construction, general aviation operations, and regulation enforcement. Four is the principle of security. Balance the maximum use of resources of Chinese airspace and the according potential threats to Chinese national interests and social security, and establish a complete insurance system which functions as security defense and indemnificatory measure. Establish a unified legal system. Currently, the system of Chinese general aviation laws consists of national legislation, administrative laws and regulations and civil aviation regulations (CAR). Some problems exist in three components of the system, including too general content, unclear guarantee measures, incomplete implementation details, and lacking corresponding pertinence and flexibility required by general aviation regulations, stringency of operation management and standards, and uniformity of standards. A law and regulation system, centered on laws and consisting of administrative laws regulations, industrial regulations, implementation details, industrial policies and local laws and regulations, should be established. It is suggested to modify the Civil Aviation Law to make general aviation laws complete, enact the Regulations of General Aviation Development, and accelerate the establishment, modification and abolition of Chinese general aviation laws to intensify the coordination and uniformity of regulations.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2008

The Great Depression is one of the most important economic incidents in the twentieth century. A significant and long-lasting impact of this event is the rise of the government intervention to the economy. Under the catastrophic downturn of the economic condition worldwide, people required their government to play an active role for economic recovery, and this $mentalit{\acute{e}}$ prolonged even after the Second World War. Social science textbooks taught at Korean high schools mostly referred to the Great Depression for explaining the reason of government intervention in economy. However, the mainstream view commonly found in the textbooks provides a misleading theological interpretation. It argues that inherent flaws of the market economy causes over-production/under-consumption, and that this mismatch ends up with economic crisis. The chaotic situation was resolved by substitution of the governments for the market, and the New Deal was introduced as the monumental example ('laissez-faire economy ${\rightarrow}$over-production${\rightarrow}$the Great Depression${\rightarrow}$government intervention${\rightarrow}$economic recovery'). Based on economic historians' researches for past three decades, I argue that this mainstream view commits the fallacy of ex-post justification. Unlike what the mainstream view claims, the Great Depression was neither the result of the 'market failure', nor the recovery from the Great Depression but was due to successful government policies. For substantiating this claim, I suggest three points. First, blaming the weakness or instability of the market economy as the cause of the Great Depression is groundless. Unlike what the textbooks describe, the rise of the U.S. stock price during the 1920s cannot be said as a bubble, and there was no sign of under-consumption during the 1920s. On the contrary, a new consensus emerging from the 1980s among economic historians illustrates that the Great Depression was originated from 'the government failure' rather than from the 'market failure'. Policymakers of European countries tried to return to the gold standard regime before the First World War, but discrepancies between this policy and the reality made the world economy vulnerable. Second, the mainstream view identifies the New Deal as Keynesian interventionism and glorifies it for saving the U.S. economy from the crisis. However, this argument is not true. The New Deal was not Keynesian at all. What the U.S. government actually tried was not macroeconomic stabilization but price and quantity control. In addition, New Deal did not brought about economic recovery that people generally believe. Even after the New Deal, industrial production or employment level remained quite low until the late 1930s. Lastly, studies on individual New Deal policies show that they did not work as they were intended. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act increased unemployment, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act expelled tenants from their land. Third, the mainstream view characterizes the economic order before the Great Depression as laissez-faire, and it tends to attribute all the vice during the Industrial Revolution era to the uncontrolled market economy. However, historical studies show that various economic and social problems of the Industrial Revolution period such as inequality problems, child labor, or environmental problems cannot be simply ascribed to the problems of the market economy. In conclusion, the remedy for all these problems in high school textbooks is not to use the Great Depression as an example showing the weakness of the market economy. The Great Depression should be introduced simply as a historical momentum that had initiated the growth of government intervention. This reform of high school textbooks is imperative for enhancing the right understanding of economy and history.